Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I’m sure there’s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I’m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weedsthat have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio.

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

Is that not a pretty picture? It is what happens to our land when we rely on finite sources of dirty fossil fuel energy. Say goodbye to the trees, the animals, and a clean environment! The picture is not of a Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking site. It is a picture of the lesser known Sand Fracking that goes on to supply the needed Silica sand for the extremely toxic Hydraulic Fracking process of which there are now 65,000 wells and counting throughout the U.S.

The premium sand that is ideal for Hydraulic Fracturing or Horizontal Fracturing has been found by businessmen, mainly from Texas, and the high quality sand is in Wisconsin and Minnesota! A little-known company called Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC is responsible for this “gold rush” in the Sand Fracking industry. Their webpage looks innocent, but looks can be deceiving!

Let’s break down three key people in their leadership: Brian Iverson, Ryan Thomas and Ike Thomas. Brian Iverson drew the attention of Texas businessmen Ike and Ryan Thomas, and he formally set up Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC in 2011 using a Wisconsin address although he lived in Minnesota. Brian Iverson has not only been accused of investment fraud related to a group of mining investors from Montana, but he also filed bankruptcy a little over two years ago to cover over $21 million of debt he accrued related to former business deals “and personal guaranties he gave as security for business loans.” Source: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/07/09/frac-sand-or-farmland-wisconsin-farmers-face-showdown-rescheduled-august-9

Boy, this Brian Iverson guy sounds like bad news! He’s shady at best, and he has hooked up with two Texas businessmen since 2011 to completely destroy (see picture above) Wisconsin and Minnesota’s pristine environment by slithering in like a snake to slowly poison innocent citizens who have lived here for generations. What for? GREED, of course! Brian Iverson needed help to become financially successful, because he has a dirty past of screwing people over, then filing bankruptcy for his losses! Iverson is the epitome of selfishness! He obviously does not care about people in general or his workers, since I am sure he is aware of the dangers of Silicosis and cancer.

Sand Fracking for Crystalline Silica is known to cause Silicosis and cancer. Source: OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/crystalline-factsheet.pdf The Silica sand from Sand Fracking can blow for miles if not continually watered down according to lame government standards. At best, the Crystalline Silica produced from Sand Fracking to use in Hydraulic Fracking will only affect nearby areas to include the Mississippi River. That is bad enough if you live in a state where Sand Fracking sites are popping up faster than they can be properly studied for health risks before approval! Without proper studies on the harmful effects and affects of fracking, county boards like Buffalo County, WI just delay the permit for Sand Fracking until all of the ‘angry citizen’ dust has settled. Then, they go in and vote 3-0 in favor of what nobody wants except for the dirty fossil fuel industry and big business like Glacier Sands LLC! I wonder how many board members and other officials get paid to pass legislation for mining that is NOT wanted by a vast majority of U.S. citizens in general? Probably more than one can possibly imagine! Brian Iverson had help from Ike and Ryan Thomas though. Anything coming out of the most polluted state (Texas) in the U.S. for over a decade and running cannot be good!

Is this what our country wants? A monkey barrel of bullies overrunning our local governments to feed their lust for money and power? Apparently so, because I do not see anyone standing up en masse to protest fraudulent businessmen. Businessmen who sucker farmers or anyone else with many acres of land via a greed-laden but small payout for ruining not only the farmer’s or individual’s land, but the land, water, complete infrastructure to include roads and buildings of towns and cities, and health of humans and animals!

Do you think that Glacier Sands or any other “Fracking” business is going to pay for human health problems which show up years or decades later, or the contamination of our land and water in general? They will be long gone by the time we catch up to the mess they have left behind! Taxpayers, as usual, will be stuck cleaning up dirty mining’s mess due to lack of current concern or ability to do much of anything to stop the Sand Fracking nightmare that consumes Wisconsin and Minnesota! It’s such a shame too, because if you can stop the Sand Fracking from happening then you can halt the even more dangerous Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking that uses Crystalline Silica in large quantities. Fracking, like Glacier Sands is doing, has already turned America’s landscape from this

I live in the beautiful state of Wisconsin, with the exception of the bone-chilling cold during January and February! One of my state’s senators sent me a letter informing me that, in short, mining here can be done safely with minimal environmental impact.

There is no such thing as “safe mining!” The two words when put together are polar opposites of each other. I like my idea better, so I emailed it off to him! You can do the same with all of your state’s elected officials, including your governor, by sending them a clear, resounding message that it is (way past) time to divest from dirty, finite energy and invest in cheaper, clean, renewable energy starting today! Our climate is screaming for help, and we can no longer let our legislators promote their hidden, greed-laden agendas!

Here is a copy of a brief letter that I just sent off to Senator Cullen:

Dear Senator Cullen:

There is no need for mining of any kind in the great state of Wisconsin where I was born and raised! Mining for finite, dirty energy sources is dangerous, unhealthy to the workers, and unhealthy to the rest of Wisconsinites, since there is always pollution runoff or overflow. This runoff or overflow is NOT properly regulated by the EPA or its WI branch!

We have a vested interest to divest from dirty energy and invest in clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro-electric and geothermal power. Our environment desperately needs this in order to avert catastrophic weather changes that are steadily increasing in numbers and intensity! For the sake of humanity and its future generations, please take mining off of Wisconsin’s energy table! We deserve better, cheaper energy alternatives, and most importantly, so do our children!

Hydraulic fracturing has helped to expand natural gas production in the United States,
unlocking large natural gas supplies in shale and other unconventional formations across the
country. As a result of hydraulic fracturing and advances in horizontal drilling technology,
natural gas production in 2010 reached the highest level in decades. According to new estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States possesses natural gas resources sufficient to supply the United States for approximately 110 years.
As the use of hydraulic fracturing has grown, so have concerns about its environmental
and public health impacts. One concern is that hydraulic fracturing fluids used to fracture rock
formations contain numerous chemicals that could harm human health and the environment,
especially if they enter drinking water supplies. The opposition of many oil and gas companies
to public disclosure of the chemicals they use has compounded this concern.
Last Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an investigation to
examine the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. As part of that inquiry, the
Committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products. This report summarizes the information provided to the Committee.

Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products – not including water added
at the well site – between 2005 and 2009.

Some of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and
generally harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant coffee
and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. Appendix A lists
each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in hydraulic fracturing products between
2005 and 2009.

The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol,
which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the
candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the other
most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol (used in 274 products), 2-butoxyethanol
(used in 126 products), and ethylene glycol (used in 119 products).

Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing
products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2)
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more
than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.

The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a
regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.

In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to provide the
Committee with a complete chemical makeup of the hydraulic fracturing fluids they used.
Between 2005 and 2009, the companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. Committee staff requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information. Although some companies did provide information about these proprietary fluids, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical suppliers. In these cases, the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.

II. BACKGROUND

Hydraulic fracturing – a method by which oil and gas service companies provide access
to domestic energy trapped in hard-to-reach geologic formations — has been the subject of both enthusiasm and increasing environmental and health concerns in recent years. Hydraulic
fracturing, used in combination with horizontal drilling, has allowed industry to access natural
gas reserves previously considered uneconomical, particularly in shale formations. As a result of
the growing use of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas production in the United States reached
21,577 billion cubic feet in 2010, a level not achieved since a period of high natural gas
production between 1970 and 1974.1 Overall, the Energy Information Administration now
projects that the United States possesses 2,552 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas
resources, enough to supply the United States for approximately 110 years. Natural gas from
shale resources accounts for 827 trillion cubic feet of this total, which is more than double what
the EIA estimated just a year ago.

Hydraulic fracturing creates access to more natural gas supplies, but the process requires
the use of large quantities of water and fracturing fluids, which are injected underground at high
volumes and pressure. Oil and gas service companies design fracturing fluids to create fractures and transport sand or other granular substances to prop open the fractures. The composition of these fluids varies by formation, ranging from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical additives. The companies may use these

chemical additives to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the flow of the fluid, or kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing performance. Some of these chemicals, if not disposed of safely or allowed to leach into the drinking water supply, could damage the environment or pose a risk to human health. During hydraulic fracturing, fluids containing chemicals are injected deep underground, where their migration is not entirely predictable. Well failures, such as the use of insufficient well casing, could lead to their release at shallower depths, closer to drinking water supplies. Although some fracturing fluids are removed from the well at the end of the fracturing process, a substantial amount remains underground.

While most underground injections of chemicals are subject to the protections of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress in 2005 modified the law to exclude “the underground
injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing
operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities” from the Act’s protections.6
Unless oil and gas service companies use diesel in the hydraulic fracturing process, the
permanent underground injection of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing is not regulated by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Concerns also have been raised about the ultimate outcome of chemicals that are
recovered and disposed of as wastewater. This wastewater is stored in tanks or pits at the well
site, where spills are possible. For final disposal, well operators must either recycle the fluids
for use in future fracturing jobs, inject it into underground storage wells (which, unlike the
fracturing process itself, are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act), discharge it to nearby
surface water, or transport it to wastewater treatment facilities. A recent report in the New York

For instance, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has cited Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation for contamination of drinking water wells with seepage caused by weak casing or improper cementing of a natural gas well. See Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling, ProPublica (Apr. 26, 2009) (online at www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426) (accessed Mar. 24, 2011).

John A. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Water Management Technologies Used by
Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared for the Department of Energy (July 2010), at 13
(hereinafter “Water Management Technologies”).

42 U.S.C. § 300h(d). Many dubbed this provision the “Halliburton loophole” because
of Halliburton’s ties to then-Vice President Cheney and its role as one of the largest providers of
hydraulic fracturing services. See The Halliburton Loophole, New York Times (Nov. 9. 2009).

Times raised questions about the safety of surface water discharge and the ability of water
treatment facilities to process wastewater from natural gas drilling operations.

Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large
part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil
and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, and state disclosure
requirements vary greatly. While the industry has recently announced that it soon will create a
public database of fluid components, reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, disclosure
will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary, and there is no way to
determine if companies are accurately reporting information for all wells.

The absence of a minimum national baseline for disclosure of fluids injected during the
hydraulic fracturing process and the exemption of most hydraulic fracturing injections from
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act has left an informational void concerning the
contents, chemical concentrations, and volumes of fluids that go into the ground during
fracturing operations and return to the surface in the form of wastewater. As a result, regulators
and the public are unable effectively to assess any impact the use of these fluids may have on the environment or public health.

III. METHODOLOGY

On February 18, 2010, the Committee commenced an investigation into the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on water quality across the United States. This investigation built on work begun by Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman in 2007 as Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee initially sent letters to eight oil and gas service companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In May 2010, the Committee sent letters to six additional oil and gas service companies to assess a

[Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).

Wyoming, for example, recently enacted relatively strong disclosure regulations,
requiring disclosure on a well-by-well basis and “for each stage of the well stimulation
program,” “the chemical additives, compounds and concentrations or rates proposed to be mixed and injected.” See WCWR 055-000-003 Sec. 45. Similar regulations became effective in
Arkansas this year. See Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Rule B-19. In Wyoming, much of
this information is, after an initial period of review, available to the public. See WCWR 055-
000-003 Sec. 21. Other states, however, do not insist on such robust disclosure. For instance,
West Virginia has no disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing and expressly exempts
fluids used during hydraulic fracturing from the disclosure requirements applicable to
underground injection of fluids for purposes of waste storage. See W. Va. Code St. R. § 34-5-7.

broader range of industry practices. The February and May letters requested information on
the type and volume of chemicals present in the hydraulic fracturing products that each company used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009.

The 14 oil and gas service companies that received the letter voluntarily provided
substantial information to the Committee. As requested, the companies reported the names and
volumes of the products they used during the five-year period. For each hydraulic fracturing
product reported, the companies also provided a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) detailing
the product’s chemical components. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requires chemical manufacturers to create a MSDS for every product they sell as a
means to communicate potential health and safety hazards to employees and employers. The
MSDS must list all hazardous ingredients if they comprise at least 1% of the product; for
carcinogens, the reporting threshold is 0.1%.

Under OSHA regulations, manufacturers may withhold the identity of chemical
components that constitute “trade secrets.” If the MSDS for a particular product used by a
company subject to the Committee’s investigation reported that the identity of any chemical
component was a trade secret, the Committee asked the company that used that product to
provide the proprietary information, if available.

IV. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS AND THEIR CONTENTS

Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005
and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well
site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are
seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a
severe risk to human health or the environment.

BJ Services, Halliburton, and Schlumberger already had provided the Oversight
Committee with data for 2005 through 2007. For BJ Services, the 2005-2007 data is limited to
natural gas wells. For Schlumberger, the 2005-2007 data is limited to coalbed methane wells.

29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(i)(C)(1).

29 CFR 1910.1200.

Each hydraulic fracturing “product” is a mixture of chemicals or other components
designed to achieve a certain performance goal, such as increasing the viscosity of water. Some
oil and gas service companies create their own products; most purchase these products from
chemical vendors. The service companies then mix these products together at the well site to
formulate the hydraulic fracturing fluids that they pump underground.]

Some of the components were surprising. One company told the Committee that it used
instant coffee as one of the components in a fluid designed to inhibit acid corrosion. Two
companies reported using walnut hulls as part of a breaker—a product used to degrade the
fracturing fluid viscosity, which helps to enhance post-fracturing fluid recovery. Another
company reported using carbohydrates as a breaker. One company used tallow soap—soap
made from beef, sheep, or other animals—to reduce loss of fracturing fluid into the exposed
rock.

Appendix A lists each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in the hydraulic
fracturing products injected underground between 2005 and 2009.

A. Commonly Used Chemical Components
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of products containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol is a
hazardous air pollutant and a candidate for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was
a component in 342 hydraulic fracturing products. Some of the other most widely used
chemicals include isopropyl alcohol, which was used in 274 products, and ethylene glycol, which
was used in 119 products. Crystalline silica (silicon dioxide) appeared in 207 products, generally
proppants used to hold open fractures. Table 1 has a list of the most commonly used compounds in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Table 1. Chemical Components Appearing Most Often in Hydraulic Fracturing Products Used Between 2005 and 2009:

Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or
surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly
distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown
that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the
spleen, liver, and bone marrow. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million
gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of
products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used.
EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming. Table
2 shows the use of 2-BE by state.

B. Toxic Chemicals
The oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29
chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of 652 different products used in hydraulic fracturing. Table 3 lists these toxic chemicals and their frequency of use.

According to EPA, diesel contains benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. See
EPA, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA 816-R-04-003) at 4-11.

1. Carcinogens
Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 95 products containing
13 different carcinogens. These included naphthalene (a possible human carcinogen), benzene (a known human carcinogen), and acrylamide (a probable human carcinogen). Overall, these companies injected 10.2 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one carcinogen. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more
carcinogens in Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Table 4 shows the use of these chemicals by
state.

2. Safe Drinking Water Act Chemicals
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA regulates 53 chemicals that may have an
adverse effect on human health and are known to or likely to occur in public drinking water
systems at levels of public health concern. Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing
companies used 67 products containing at least one of eight SDWA-regulated chemicals.
Overall, they injected 11.7 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one chemical
regulated under SDWA. Most of these chemicals were injected in Texas. Table 5 shows the use
of these chemicals by state.

For purposes of this report, a chemical is considered a “carcinogen” if it is on one of
two lists: (1) substances identified by the National Toxicology Program as “known to be human
carcinogens” or as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens”; and (2) substances
identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health
Organization, as “carcinogenic” or “probably carcinogenic” to humans. See U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on
Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition (Jan. 31, 2005) and World Health Organization, International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs (online athttp://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php) (accessed Feb. 28, 2011).

The vast majority of these SDWA-regulated chemicals were the BTEX compounds –
benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. The BTEX compounds appeared in 60 hydraulic
fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009 and were used in 11.4 million gallons of
hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, and EPA have determined that benzene is a human
carcinogen. Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes also can damage the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys.

In addition, the hydraulic fracturing companies injected more than 30 million gallons of
diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. In a 2004
report, EPA stated that the “use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat” to
underground sources of drinking water. Diesel fuel contains toxic constituents, including
BTEX compounds. EPA also has created a Candidate Contaminant List (CCL), which is a list of
contaminants that are currently not subject to national primary drinking water regulations but are
known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the future. Nine chemicals on that list—1-butanol, acetaldehyde, benzyl

3. Hazardous Air Pollutants
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to control the emission of 187 hazardous air pollutants,
which are pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as
reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. Between
2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 595 products containing 24 different
hazardous air pollutants.

Hydrogen fluoride is a hazardous air pollutant that is a highly corrosive and systemic
poison that causes severe and sometimes delayed health effects due to deep tissue penetration. Absorption of substantial amounts of hydrogen fluoride by any route may be fatal. One of the hydraulic fracturing companies used 67,222 gallons of two products containing hydrogen fluoride in 2008 and 2009.

Lead is a hazardous air pollutant that is a heavy metal that is particularly harmful to
children’s neurological development. It also can cause health problems in adults, including
reproductive problems, high blood pressure, and nerve disorders. One of the hydraulic
fracturing companies used 780 gallons of a product containing lead in this five-year period.

Methanol is the hazardous air pollutant that appeared most often in hydraulic fracturing
products. Other hazardous air pollutants used in hydraulic fracturing fluids included
formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, and ethylene glycol.

V. USE OF PROPRIETARY AND “TRADE SECRET” CHEMICALS

Many chemical components of hydraulic fracturing fluids used by the companies were
listed on the MSDSs as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The hydraulic fracturing companies used
93.6 million gallons of 279 products containing at least one proprietary component between 2005 and 2009.

This is likely a conservative estimate. We included only those products for which the
MSDS says “proprietary” or “trade secret” instead of listing a component by name or providing
the CAS number. If the MSDS listed a component’s CAS as N.A. or left it blank, we did not
count that as a trade secret claim, unless the company specified as such in follow-up
correspondence.]

The Committee requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information.
Although a few companies were able to provide additional information to the Committee about
some of the fracturing products, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical
suppliers. The proprietary information belongs to the suppliers, not the users of the chemicals.

Universal Well Services, for example, told the Committee that it “obtains hydraulic
fracturing products from third-party manufacturers, and to the extent not publicly disclosed,
product composition is proprietary to the respective vendor and not to the Company.
Complete Production Services noted that the company always uses fluids from third-party
suppliers who provide an MSDS for each product. Complete confirmed that it is “not aware of
any circumstances in which the vendors who provided the products have disclosed this
proprietary information” to the company, further noting that “such information is highly
proprietary for these vendors, and would not generally be disclosed to service providers” like
Complete. Key Energy Services similarly stated that it “generally does not have access to the
trade secret information as a purchaser of the chemical(s). Trican also told the Committee that
it has limited knowledge of “off the shelf” products purchased from a chemical distributor or
manufacturer, noting that “Trican does not have any information in its possession about the
components of such products beyond what the distributor of each product provided Trican in the
MSDS sheet.

In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown
chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to
human health and the environment.

VI. CONCLUSION

Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could
provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of
hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals
used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment
to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process. It shows
that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States
used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of
these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.

To compile this list of chemicals, Committee staff reviewed each Material Safety Data
Sheet provided to the Committee for hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Committee staff transcribed the names and CAS numbers as written in the MSDSs; as such, any inaccuracies on this list reflect inaccuracies on the MSDSs themselves.

* Components marked with an asterisk appeared on at least one MSDS without an identifying
CAS number. The MSDSs in these cases marked the CAS as proprietary, noted that the CAS was not available, or left the CAS field blank. Components marked with an asterisk may be
duplicative of other components on this list, but Committee staff have no way of identifying such
duplicates without the identifying CAS number.

Source: Report –

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
MINORITY STAFF
APRIL 2011